Shooting at Connecticut School

[RainMaker]

Was a very good post. He has a good head on his shoulders and perspective on life. You've done a good job.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Was a very good post. He has a good head on his shoulders and perspective on life. You've done a good job.

In spite of me, often as not. Partial there, partially serious.

I'll say this, I see me in there, but I mostly see him in there. I think that's how the good kids probably are, when you really look at them you see them more than anything else. I've got a good one.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I think there'd be a little more tolerance for the policy discussion earlier if the tone was like it (usually) is here - pretty rational. People love to say "in before the lock" and all that but I think there's been plenty of rational gun control debates here. But some people on my facebook wall seem almost excited this happened. The grandstanding and the "blood is on your hands" stuff, ya, I'd rather they calm down and keep it to themselves for a few weeks. The vibe of the rhetoric is that if you have these certain political leanings than you care more about children than if you have these other political leanings (I say vibe but that's actually outright stated when the conversations get heated.) There's no rational discussion that can take place when that kind of emotion is involved. The freedom and security balance is really tricky, and the issues are complicated, and nobody has all the answers. If you can start a discussion where people agree with that, then there's no reason you can't have rational policy discussion any time.

I'm not even talking about just guns. Obviously the cats out of the bag on that one and it's not like you can remove guns from society (look how well it's worked with drugs!). There seem to be a lot of factors in play from things in our culture, mental health, to even parenting.

But you're right, there are people on both sides who don't want to actually fix the problem, they want their team to win. They want to shame the other side and puff up their chest. It's a sad reality of politics today and a reason we are struggling so much.

[IlliniCub]

As sad as it is to think about,,,,despite all the debate either way, honestly if a guy is determined to shoot up an elementary school he's probably going to have some degree of success....I think the real problem goes way beyond any sort of political debate about gun control

[IlliniCub]

dola...this things really affected me beyond most of the tragic events in my lifetime....at least with 9/11 I could understand motivation and mindset (not justifying it anyway just saying I feel like I have an idea od the beliefs of the hijackers) but this.....I mean putting 11 shots through an 8 year old, and with working with kids for a living its just really tough for me to come to grips with...could of been my school

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm not even talking about just guns. Obviously the cats out of the bag on that one and it's not like you can remove guns from society (look how well it's worked with drugs!). There seem to be a lot of factors in play from things in our culture, mental health, to even parenting.

But you're right, there are people on both sides who don't want to actually fix the problem, they want their team to win. They want to shame the other side and puff up their chest. It's a sad reality of politics today and a reason we are struggling so much.

Ya, the slaughter of children has proven to be a terrific opportunity for Americans to express their already-existing disdain for each other. That'd be OK if the legislature was above all that.

[Izulde]

20 Moving Pictures Of The World Grieving For Sandy Hook

Some very moving images here.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't understand why people blame the sensationalist media. A person walked into an elementary school and slaughtered little kids. Are they supposed to do a 30 second bit on it and move on to the weather?

Don't like defending the media too much, but they do seem to fall into this no-win situation. If they cover the big event too much they are sensationalizing, if they cover garbage like Lindsay Lohan they are ignoring real news.

I think Freeman (if it was him) made a good point here. It´s not a question of wether or not you report on it, but of what angle you take.

Originally Posted by IlliniCub

As sad as it is to think about,,,,despite all the debate either way, honestly if a guy is determined to shoot up an elementary school he's probably going to have some degree of success....I think the real problem goes way beyond any sort of political debate about gun control

yes, but just because you can´t stop a really determined car thief it doesn´t mean you shouldn´t still lock the damn doors to prevent the less determined one to steal your car.

That´s my main issue here, simply saying "we can´t prevent everything", that´s where i get a little bit irritated ... (no offense to you personally !)

I also wouldn´t say that this is the one key to succeeding here, but just because there´s other problems (how mental health is dealt with f.e.) doesn´t nescesserily mean that it isn´t an area where things could be improved with.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Izulde

20 Moving Pictures Of The World Grieving For Sandy Hook

Some very moving images here.

D*** you, I don't like getting choked up while working.

My heart sunk when I heard the news as I am sure happened to every parent. Seeing the firemen in front of the memorial at a place where children should not have their innocence ripped out from under them is very moving.

[rowech]

Not really the mom but I think this is excellent...

I am Adam Lanza's Mother - The Blue Review | The Blue Review

[BYU 14]

Obviously sports are so trivial in light if this tragedy, but thought this was cool that the QPR players requested this.

Premier League clubs pay tribute to Newtown shooting victims - Yahoo! Sports

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Izulde

20 Moving Pictures Of The World Grieving For Sandy Hook

Some very moving images here.

Some very powerful images, the lives of those affacted will never be the same, but it is so amazing to see the world reach out like this.

[JPhillips]

The father of one of my daughter's classmates is a federal marshal and is apparently at the school helping with the investigation.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In spite of me, often as not. Partial there, partially serious.

I'll say this, I see me in there, but I mostly see him in there. I think that's how the good kids probably are, when you really look at them you see them more than anything else. I've got a good one.

That's a great writeup, Jon. One nice thing about Facebook and social media is that we get to hear the voices of our kids a lot more than I think we did before, and they get to use their voice in a new way. Good for him for speaking out so eloquently.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Autumn

That's a great writeup, Jon. One nice thing about Facebook and social media is that we get to hear the voices of our kids a lot more than I think we did before, and they get to use their voice in a new way. Good for him for speaking out so eloquently.

You raise a very good point there. No matter how they use it (or which venue), it does give them an outlet that really didn't exist previously.

[Autumn]

So it seems pretty clear at this point that the mother had nothing to do with the school. I had seen yesterday at some point a report saying the police had a very good lead as to the motive for the killings, but haven't heard anything else about that. I know it doesn't really make a difference, but I really hope there is some "reason." I can't imagine being those parents and having to just accept that this happened randomly.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Autumn

So it seems pretty clear at this point that the mother had nothing to do with the school. I had seen yesterday at some point a report saying the police had a very good lead as to the motive for the killings, but haven't heard anything else about that. I know it doesn't really make a difference, but I really hope there is some "reason." I can't imagine being those parents and having to just accept that this happened randomly.

There seems to be mixed signals about what police have learned about motive. First the statement (that I'm sure you're referring to") about how they'd found evidence at both locations that would go a long way toward revealing the reason ... but now there's "a law enforcement official has said police have found no letters or diaries left behind that could shed light on it".

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Autumn

So it seems pretty clear at this point that the mother had nothing to do with the school. I had seen yesterday at some point a report saying the police had a very good lead as to the motive for the killings, but haven't heard anything else about that. I know it doesn't really make a difference, but I really hope there is some "reason." I can't imagine being those parents and having to just accept that this happened randomly.

I have a bad feeling its going to end up being that mom hated the school because they weren't able to help him probably because of resrouces available and he kept hearing her say these things. In his mind, he realized he wasn't normal and because of what he heard he believed it was the schools fault.

[Scoobz0202]

Originally Posted by rowech

Not really the mom but I think this is excellent...

I am Adam Lanza's Mother - The Blue Review | The Blue Review

That link isn't working for me, but is it this?

The Anarchist Soccer Mom: Thinking the Unthinkable

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

That link isn't working for me, but is it this?

The Anarchist Soccer Mom: Thinking the Unthinkable

Yes. Great name for a website.

[molson]

Originally Posted by rowech

Not really the mom but I think this is excellent...

I am Adam Lanza's Mother - The Blue Review | The Blue Review

Ya, that stuff is just brutal. It think the Seattle shooter's parents went through similar things with him. I do disagree with her conclusion that that it's "stigma" against mental health that makes the criminal justice system the only means of protecting society from the dangerously mentally ill. I think its that the criminal justice system is the only place where you can legally impose meaningful restrictions on people's freedom and force them to undergo treatment and remove them from society if necessary.

The child described in this article pulled a knife on his mother and lives with two other children. That's unacceptable. He should be indefinitely detained, IMO. Whether or not he and his mother want him to be. What if that kid shoots up his school tomorrow. 95% of the dialogue would still be gun control. And this is a kid who has acted out violently. We are SO far away from dealing even with the adults, who have more rights, who are dangerous, but who aren't criminals yet. "More mental health research" is fine too but at the end of the day it doesn't matter how much "research" or "availability of treatment" you have if you're not allowed to force anyone into treatment or institutionalization until they actually murder people.

Prosecutors know that the criminal justice system is the only line of defense here. When a mentally ill individual commits a crime short of murder, they understand that that may be the only opportunity to compel mental health treatment and supervision, so they aggressively prosecute. And defense attorneys and the ACLU accuse of them of "criminalizing illness" and such. A prosecutor in that jurisdiction who reads that article should consider investigating that kid and perhaps charging him with aggravated assault. With or without the cooperation of the mother. Maybe then the kid can get some help and even have a chance at life, and you might even save the lives of dozens of innocent people. Unless that kid gets a felony conviction (and in most states and the federal system, unless he gets a felony conviction in adult court), he'll be able to legally purchase a firearm in a few years. Until he murders someone, then he wouldn't be allowed to anymore.

[miami_fan]

Ind. man with 47 guns arrested after school threat

CEDAR LAKE, Ind. — Authorities say an Indiana man who had 47 guns and ammunition in his home has been arrested after allegedly threatening to kill people at an elementary school near his home.

Cedar Lake police were called to the home of 60-year-old Von I. Meyer early Friday after he allegedly threatened to set his wife on fire. A police statement says Meyer also said he would enter Jane Ball Elementary School and "kill as many people as he could."

Authorities found 47 guns and ammunition worth over $100,000.

Prosecutors filed felony intimidation charges against Meyer on Saturday, one day after the massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. He is being held without bond.

Cedar Lake is about 45 miles southeast of Chicago.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Oddly enough, the same essay just showed up on my FB wall. I'll just copy & paste my comment from FB to here

re: "It’s time for a meaningful, nation-wide conversation about mental health" ... in as neutral a tone as possible, I'll say that I don't believe very many people will be satisfied with where such a hypothetical conversation ends up.

[Scoobz0202]

Originally Posted by molson

The child described in this article pulled a knife on his mother and lives with two other children. That's unacceptable. He should be indefinitely detained, IMO. Whether or not he and his mother want him to be. What if that kid shoots up his school tomorrow. 95% of the dialogue would still be gun control. And this is a kid who has acted out violently. We are SO far away from dealing even with the adults, who have more rights, who are dangerous, but who aren't criminals yet. "More mental health research" is fine too but at the end of the day it doesn't matter how much "research" or "availability of treatment" you have if you're not allowed to force anyone into treatment or institutionalization until they actually murder people.

Yea, this is the tough part. I have an older brother that is mentally disabled with verbally abusive tendencies that have at times reached a physically level. The onset of his wasn't until he was 18, though, but I've seen the motherly "can't give up" attitude for the better part of twenty years now. I can't imagine how strong those feelings are for a mother of a minor. The only real reprieve my mother gets is when he is in jail, or prison.

My mother calls the police, though, if things get out of hand. Which I wonder if it has to do with the age. The mother of that article mentions how it won't be long until he is stronger than her, and that she needs help. I have a feeling she feels some type of control even when things turn nasty due to the strength issue. At least the siblings have a plan that they know to do when things turn violent. She seems to be anxious about when he is finally stronger than her.

I do agree, though. He needs to be removed from that environment until there is some type of control over his illness. It's just tough, ya know.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

Yea, this is the tough part. I have an older brother that is mentally disabled with verbally abusive tendencies that have at times reached a physically level. The onset of his wasn't until he was 18, though, but I've seen the motherly "can't give up" attitude for the better part of twenty years now. I can't imagine how strong those feelings are for a mother of a minor. The only real reprieve my mother gets is when he is in jail, or prison.

My mother calls the police, though, if things get out of hand. Which I wonder if it has to do with the age. The mother of that article mentions how it won't be long until he is stronger than her, and that she needs help. I have a feeling she feels some type of control even when things turn nasty due to the strength issue. At least the siblings have a plan that they know to do when things turn violent. She seems to be anxious about when he is finally stronger than her.

I do agree, though. He needs to be removed from that environment until there is some type of control over his illness. It's just tough, ya know.

I've found, both in the case of domestic violence victims, and family-member victims like this, that when you take control out of their hands, and tell them its not their choice anymore, they often have a huge sense of relief. Nobody wants to be the one that's "responsible" for sending their husband or child to prison or a mental hospital. And they shouldn't have to be the ones responsible. The criminal case or involuntary commitment proceedings are "State v. Defendant", not "Family Members v. Family Member." The state is the other party, it's their burden, not the family's.

Back in the old days if the police went on a domestic violence call, and a battered wife opened the door with two black eyes and said she didn't want to press charges, the cops would leave. That's not the case anymore. And ya, we need to get there with mental illness too.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

And ya, we need to get there with mental illness too.

Again just cribbing what I've said elsewhere (since I seem to be having/watching simultaneous discussion)

"A culture that celebrates "Born That Way" as a great musical achievement with deep social meaning is not likely to deal with the reality of pre-emptive measures. Nor do I believe we're a society inclined to admit that our top priority in this area is protecting ourselves/our loved ones rather than the vague notion of "helping" the mentally/emotionally disturbed and those who deal with them most closely. And, honestly, I don't think those loved ones are inclined to want to deal with that reality either."

[molson]

The line that really got me in that article where she said something like, "if you threaten to kill me or your siblings one more time you're going to get some mental health treatment!"....Good lord, what a hell that poor woman must be living in.

[Scoobz0202]

Originally Posted by molson

I've found, both in the case of domestic violence victims, and family-member victims like this, that when you take control out of their hands, and tell them its not their choice anymore, they often have a huge sense of relief. Nobody wants to be the one that's "responsible" for sending their husband or child to prison or a mental hospital. And they shouldn't have to be the ones responsible. The criminal case or involuntary commitment proceedings are "State v. Defendant", not "Family Members v. Family Member." The state is the other party, it's their burden, not the family's.

Back in the old days if the police went on a domestic violence call, and a battered wife opened the door with two black eyes and said she didn't want to press charges, the cops would leave. That's not the case anymore. And ya, we need to get there with mental illness too.

Agreed. Again, this is only from personal experience, but that is pretty much where my mother is. By this point, everybody else in my family puts up with my brother, but nobody else does anything for him. Certain members of my family tell my mother to just let him go and stop being responsible for him. But, like you said and she has told me this many times, if she lets him go then she failed as a mother, and whatever he does to himself or others will be her fault. She feels as if she is the only thing that can possibly help him. And in a terrible way, she is right, even if there is no fixing him.

I do know that she has always been frustrated with the criminal system because whenever he would get in trouble and be put in the local jail system or state system she would always fail to understand how this helped him. Why was he not being sent somewhere that could treat, or at least try and understand what is wrong with him and ways to prevent or control what he does. Instead, he would be put in a general population jail system where he would serve his time and then be released. The "rehabilitation" system of prison doesn't work on regular inmates, how would it rehabilitate a mentally disabled person.

If there was a good alternative for her, a way to get good help, where she could relieve the burden from herself then I am sure she would be all for it. I don't know how good/bad the system is in the cases of children with mental illness versus adults.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

I do know that she has always been frustrated with the criminal system because whenever he would get in trouble and be put in the local jail system or state system she would always fail to understand how this helped him. Why was he not being sent somewhere that could treat, or at least try and understand what is wrong with him and ways to prevent or control what he does. Instead, he would be put in a general population jail system where he would serve his time and then be released. The "rehabilitation" system of prison doesn't work on regular inmates, how would it rehabilitate a mentally disabled person.

Ya, some states and cities do this a hell of a lot better than others. I worked in Juneau, Alaska, and they had these specific mental health probation officers for misdemeanor crimes. So once you got into the criminal justice system, even with just a misdemeanor, you'd have a probation officer who followed you around, made sure you took your medication, went to your therapy sessions, were evaluated over time, etc. There would be jail time as a consequence if you violated probation, but I think that's appropriate, if you're not able to be treated even with those kinds of services, then society should protected from you.

[Scoobz0202]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, some states and cities do this a hell of a lot better at this than others. I worked in Juneau, Alaska, and they had these mental health probation officers for misdemeanor crimes. So once you got into the criminal justice system, even with just a misdemeanor, you'd have a probation officer who followed you around, made sure you took your medication, went to your therapy sessions, were evaluated over time, etc. There would be a short amount of jail time as a consequence if you violated probation, but I think that's appropriate, if you're not able to be treated even with those kinds of services, then society should protected from you.

Certainly. I've always felt that for whatever sentence my brother would receive would be better served in some specialized prison/hospital/mental rehabilitation institution. He did the crime, so let him do the time. But let the time be productive in some way, not just for him, or my family, but for society as well.

[molson]

And even if a city or state could come along and really try to address this stuff and do all the "right" things, all it takes is one kid to snap one day and we'd be all talking about the failings of that system and how they couldn't prevent it. Which can make you feel kind of hopeless, but its certainly a worthy endeavor to try improve anything. Safety is an illusion really and there's no guarantees.

[Ben E Lou]

Honest question: do we actually have "help" for the more serious stuff? The mom in that article has insurance, is clearly involved and concerned, and can't even get a diagnosis. Is there reason to believe that more research into these issues would bring about cures or at least better coping mechanisms? Or is it a situation where the best hope is to pre-emptively and involuntarily put people in "treatment" that really just amounts to long-term confinement?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Honest question: do we actually have "help" for the more serious stuff? The mom in that article has insurance, is clearly involved and concerned, and can't even get a diagnosis. Is there reason to believe that more research into these issues would bring about cures or at least better coping mechanisms?

You raise one of several points that I've been leaving alone.

It was more than a little interesting to me to see the CT shooter described (by a family member) as having Asperger's syndrome ... a condition that was just dropped from the latest revision of the DSM-5 earlier this month.

Effectively, the condition he would have been hypothetically treated for (assuming of course that his relatives statement was accurate) is now said to not even exist. Instead it's just another form of illness covered under "autism spectrum disorder".

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You raise one of several points that I've been leaving alone.

It was more than a little interesting to me to see the CT shooter described (by a family member) as having Asperger's syndrome ... a condition that was just dropped from the latest revision of the DSM-5 earlier this month.

Effectively, the condition he would have been hypothetically treated for (assuming of course that his relatives statement was accurate) is now said to not even exist. Instead it's just another form of illness covered under "autism spectrum disorder".

I think this may be a case of making mountain out of molehill. To my knowledge, the change in classification won't have any effect on the treatment avenues explored. In this case, I believe the change was made because Aspberger's evidently was deemed not differentiated enough from the other forms on the autism spectrum disorder to warrant its own separate diagnosis and listing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Izulde

In this case, I believe the change was made because Aspberger's evidently was deemed not differentiated enough from the other forms on the autism spectrum disorder to warrant its own separate diagnosis and listing.

Having dealt with people diagnosed with both Asperger's and other autism spectrum disorders, that determination honestly called the credibility of the entire profession into question for me. Correction, it gave me serious doubts about the credibility of those who deemed it too indistinct to warrant a separate diagnosis.

{searches for analogy} Something akin to claiming that skin cancer, breast cancer and prostate cancer are too indistinct to warrant different diagnosis {weaker than I'd like, but I'm multitasking atm)

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Oddly enough, the same essay just showed up on my FB wall. I'll just copy & paste my comment from FB to here

re: "It’s time for a meaningful, nation-wide conversation about mental health" ... in as neutral a tone as possible, I'll say that I don't believe very many people will be satisfied with where such a hypothetical conversation ends up.

Probably not. Save for coming up with a medical solution, the best option seems to be removing these individuals from free society, which doesn't seem to sit well with many.

Could there be something better than keeping the ill in a drugged, semi-catatonic state a la One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? Maybe. Many of the ill are bright and could conceivably perform some self-sustaining tasks. I'm thinking of sort of a working commune for the the mentally ill. Heck, maybe some of them could hold "real" jobs that allowed them to telecommute. Of course it would still need to be secure, and, well, you really couldn't let these people out. Which I doubt would ever fly.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Having dealt with people diagnosed with both Asperger's and other autism spectrum disorders, that determination honestly called the credibility of the entire profession into question for me. Correction, it gave me serious doubts about the credibility of those who deemed it too indistinct to warrant a separate diagnosis.

{searches for analogy} Something akin to claiming that skin cancer, breast cancer and prostate cancer are too indistinct to warrant different diagnosis {weaker than I'd like, but I'm multitasking atm)

I agree with Jon as my oldest son (turning 30 next year) has Aspergers and I would wholeheartedly agree it deserves it's own classification.

It was a condition that did not even manifest in him until puberty and as his academic and social habits changes we spent years trying to pinpoint the issue. He was pumped full of different drugs, misdiagnosed several times and even called "lazy and anti-social" by a psychologist.

When experts took to long to even identify the condition, I to question the credibility of those that suddenly, in effect decide it does not exist.

It took until his early 20's until a turnaround started, but he is now engaged, has held a good job with a pharmacutical company (irony) for over 5 years and has likewise been complete self sufficient for over 7 years.

Once we had the diagnosis research, understanding and effort (mostly by him) have enabled this all to happen. Is he still somewhat socially awkward in settings of large groups or around new people? Yes, but he has made amazing strides and has assimilated very well into "adulthood".

I think there is a distinct difference between Aspergers and other disorders in the autism spectrum and it should continue to be handled as such.

[Marmel]

A church in newtown was just evacuated and exit ramps off the main highway into and out of the town are closed.

[Ben E Lou]

As far as glorification of the killer versus remembering the victims, an issue that I've seen/heard some people mentioning is that in this case, it's too emotional for them to learn details about the victims. On relative specifically said she got just a few sentences into one of the victim profiles and realized she couldn't handle that at all.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The father of one of my daughter's classmates is a federal marshal and is apparently at the school helping with the investigation.

He spent most of his time at the house. Needless to say he didn't divulge anything, but he's very upset at the mother based on what he saw at the home.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You raise one of several points that I've been leaving alone.

It was more than a little interesting to me to see the CT shooter described (by a family member) as having Asperger's syndrome ... a condition that was just dropped from the latest revision of the DSM-5 earlier this month.

Effectively, the condition he would have been hypothetically treated for (assuming of course that his relatives statement was accurate) is now said to not even exist. Instead it's just another form of illness covered under "autism spectrum disorder".

I find this change more of an issue of diagnostic semantics than any meaningful change in real world practice. I don't know this young man, but from what I've read, I think his actions are more the result of being a sociopath than being in the autistic spectrum disorder or any other diagnosis he has.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Having dealt with people diagnosed with both Asperger's and other autism spectrum disorders, that determination honestly called the credibility of the entire profession into question for me. Correction, it gave me serious doubts about the credibility of those who deemed it too indistinct to warrant a separate diagnosis.

{searches for analogy} Something akin to claiming that skin cancer, breast cancer and prostate cancer are too indistinct to warrant different diagnosis {weaker than I'd like, but I'm multitasking atm)

The experts who lumped the various autistic spectrum disorders did it because resources and treatment avenues were being denied to some people within the spectrum who didn't have the "right" diagnosis. Having been involved (in a relatively small way) with the process of creating DSM-V (but not this decision), there is much I find flawed about it, but I understand the reasoning for simplying this confusing diagnostic issue and any expert will always tell you that Autism consists of a wide spectrum of clinical presentations. The scientific research shows that there are relatively consistent deficits in the fusiform gyrus and other parts of the brain. However, this change is much more political and economic (to aid patients) than because of this or any other scientific finding.

Regardless, I think we are getting off on a tangent where this isn't the appropriate place to do so.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Marmel

A church in newtown was just evacuated and exit ramps off the main highway into and out of the town are closed.

I'm going to guess that's because the President was in town

SI

[cartman]

Reports coming out now that the mom was a doomsday prepper.

Connecticut school shooting: Adam Lanza's survivalist mother was obsessed with guns | Mail Online

[stevew]

It's a pretty good message to poison your kids with (extreme prepper'ing)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

As far as glorification of the killer versus remembering the victims, an issue that I've seen/heard some people mentioning is that in this case, it's too emotional for them to learn details about the victims. On relative specifically said she got just a few sentences into one of the victim profiles and realized she couldn't handle that at all.

IIRC, this was an issue that was raised at times in the aftermath of 9/11.

[Thomkal]

And yet another potential school shooting that was stopped just in time:

(apologies if someone else posted this already)

Sammie Eaglebear Chavez Arrested In Oklahoma School Shooting, Bombing Plot

[cougarfreak]

Very powerful words from the President tonight.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

Very powerful words from the President tonight.

Absolutely.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by rowech

Absolutely.

+1